The film Dunkirk is under attack in France for glorifying British prowess while neglecting French troops whose sacrifice made the epic evacuation possible.

Historians and critics have voiced annoyance over what they see as Christopher Nolan’s rewriting of the defeat of Allied forces in which 30,000 French troops held off Nazi divisions near Lille in the late spring of 1940 to protect Operation Dynamo in the Channel.

Not wanting to take anything away from the 30,000 French troops near Lille, what saved the evacuation was the fact that Hitler inexplicably held back his panzers, which were at that stage surrounding the Dunkirk pocket.

Of course, there would have been no Dunkirk if the French Army didn’t fold like a cheap card table. For goodness’ sake, the poor (both literally and metaphorically) Poland fought for longer, even with its outdated equipment, bloody cavalry (which did not charge German tanks, contrary to the legend), lack of help from its French and British allies, and a stab in the back from the Soviets. The French had the benefit of defence, parity in troops, and advantage in artillery and tanks (tanks, my God, tanks!), not to mention the British troops and my Polish grandfather fighting on their side, and yet…

In Russia, which had a non-aggression pact with Hitler at the time, the film has been mocked as a celebration of British cowardice.

Russia should STFU too. Firstly, because as the article mentions, they were allied with the Nazi Germany at the time, and had consequently instructed the French communists (of whom they were many) not to defend their own country. Soviet newspapers celebrated the fall of Paris. And secondly, because it only took Germans a few months to roll from Poland to the outskirts of Moscow, killing or taking prisoner several million Red Army troops in the process. If there was a Channel somewhere in between, east of Kiev perhaps, the Soviets would have evacuated across it too.